BEF
642: Advanced Studies in the Philosophy of Education
(Seminar on Political Theory and Equal Educational Opportunity)
Spring 2012
Instructor: John Petrovic
Phone: 348 0465
Office: 326 Graves Hall
Email: petrovic@bamaed.ua.edu
Website: http://www.bamaed.ua.edu/~jpetrovi
Meeting
Dates: February
8 & 22; March 7 & 21; April 4 & 18; May 2
· Expanded Catalog
Description:
This course provides
in-depth analyses of important individuals, ideas, or concepts that have helped
to develop, expand, or shed light on the philosophical understanding of the
myriad and contested purposes, policies, and practices of education. The course
provides an advanced study of the philosophy of education, providing students
with the philosophical tools necessary to develop their own philosophies of
education and to critique educational policies, practices, and ideals. To
accomplish this overarching objective of the course, different instructors may
choose to use the tools on a variety of topics or points of interest. In this
section of the course, we will draw on political theory/philosophy to analyze,
inform, and refine conceptualizations of a philosophical ideal: equal
educational opportunity.
The discipline of
Philosophy (in Education)
Philosophers of
education have applied their skill in analyzing arguments, assessing the status
of knowledge claims, exposing assumptions, and making syntheses of ideas from
disparate fields, to throw light on all manner of educational challenges and on
the validity of the very things they themselves are trying to argue as
philosophers. Drawing upon the techniques devised within the discipline,
philosophers engage in the conceptual project of working out some general,
systematic, coherent, and consistent picture of all that we know and think.
This work has occurred, broadly speaking, within three traditions: the
metaphysical, the analytical, and the normative.
Metaphysics addresses
the many questions that arise about what lies beyond the physical world of
sensory experience. What is the essence of beauty? Was there a prime mover of
the universe? What are the features of human nature? Questions of truth and
knowledge, epistemology, are important to philosophers as they consider
curricular questions such as what to teach and why. Questions of human nature
and other questions of ontology hold equal importance for the philosopher of
education. For if society is, as Plato suggested, the individual writ large,
the education of people for that society must take on specific characteristics.
What we now term
“analytical philosophy” surfaced in great part from Aristotle’s work on ethics.
Indeed, the Nicomachean Ethics, in
which Aristotle was trying to analyze or explain the use of certain moral terms
that occur in everyday speech in a more clear and consistent way than the
layperson could do, might appropriately be identified as one of the earliest
essays in this field. In education, analytic philosophy has made substantial
contributions in elucidating a number of concepts including “authority,”
“indoctrination,” and even such seemingly accepted popular terms as “teaching”
and “education.” As Burbules has pointed out, “This
method specialized in offering fine-grained distinctions and typologies;
diagnosing hidden equivocations or blurriness in the ordinary concepts found
within educational slogans or clichés…”
Within the normative
tradition of philosophy, the philosopher, having reached some conclusions in
her or his metaphysical investigations and having come to a common
understanding of the terms through the application of analytical philosophy,
might attempt to establish norms, standards, or guidelines for the conduct of
human affairs. Philosophers of education carry out this same project in their
examination of the aims, goals, or standards for schooling. Arguably, it is
this step by which is drawn the very fine line between theory (mainly social
theory) and philosophy.
To these descriptions, a
couple of disclaimers must be added. First, having demarcated these three
traditions, it must now be said that it is most inappropriate to do so. When
engaging in any philosophical activity, these three traditions necessarily
merge with and cross over each other in myriad ways. (Plato’s Republic
is the quintessential example of this.) Second, often what is considered
“‘philosophy’ of education” is not philosophical in a technical sense. It is
what might properly be described as deep, cultured reflection. In fact, some of
the most influential “‘philosophers of education” have provided us invaluable
non-philosophical philosophies of education including John Locke (Some
Thoughts Concerning Education), A. S. Neill (Summerhill),
and Paolo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed).
This tells us simply that “What is philosophy of education?” is a complex,
deeply philosophical question itself and one to be explored in this course.
We can explore this
question both philosophically and as cultured reflectors. What does “philosophy
of education” assume about the nature of philosophy? What does it assume about
its relation to educational concerns? In this examination, we will arrive at
many questions that the philosophy of education is meant to address and provide
us guidance in answering. What should we teach in schools? How should we teach
it? Why should we teach it? To whom should we teach it? The philosophy of
education, as a field of inquiry, then, should provide us with systematic and
coherent justifications for our educational practices and commitments. From
this broad conception, we can focus in on specific principles or ideals to be
addressed through philosophical thought.
Equal (Educational)
Opportunity: Where we’re looking for it
One principle to be
addressed through philosophical thought is that of equal educational
opportunity. In this class we shall assume, as other philosophers, that “(1)
equal educational opportunity is best construed as a principle that dictates
the distribution of educational resources, and (2) how the principle is
interpreted (or how binding it is) depends on the broader political theory in
which it is embedded” (Howe, 1989, p. 326).
The principle of equal
educational opportunity is almost universally endorsed in current educational
policy arenas. In the U.S., this has been the case at least since the Brown
decision of 1954. At the same time (and perhaps because it is so widely
endorsed), the question of precisely what this principle means and requires has
been a source of ongoing controversy.
Also widely endorsed is
the idea that equal educational opportunity is a pre-requisite of equal
opportunity generally (or vice versa?). Even though equal educational
opportunity is a pre-requisite to equal opportunity, we will follow Plato’s
example and begin with the larger or broader picture first. Thus, in the first
half of the class, we will engage in an examination of a number of political
theories that inform the general notion of equal opportunity. Specifically, we
will consider the dominant strands of 20th century liberal political
philosophy-- utilitarianism, libertarianism, and liberal egalitarianism--and
their points of agreement and disagreement. We will also examine communitarian
and Neo-Marxist criticisms, as well as some others, of the liberal tradition.
In 1971 John Rawls’ A
Theory of Justice arguably marked the rebirth of normative political
philosophy. As such, many of the authors we will read employ a Rawlsian framework or use Rawls as a point of departure or
as a foil. We will, therefore, consider Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, or at least the foundational concepts of his
Theory. Before that, however, it is necessary to consider Rawls’ desired
primary audience: utilitarians. Finally, throughout
much of this unit we will use Lesley Jacob’s three-pronged model of equal
opportunity as a point of reference. By the end of the first half (or so) of
class, we will have a certainly imperfect but fairly specific conceptualization
of “equal opportunity,” and we will have had a chance to consider applications,
again imperfect, of that conceptualization. We will have also begun some
initial ruminations about what equal educational
opportunity might mean.
In the second half of
the class we will continue to use Jacobs as a segue to
move into the task of defining equal educational opportunity directly
and, hopefully, more precisely. To aid in this, we will look at the present
state of public education vis
a vis equality. Using Brown v. Board as an example of one iteration of equal educational opportunity, we will
begin to explore both what equal educational opportunity has meant and what it
should mean. A particular controversy here was stimulated largely by James
Coleman, who raised the issue of whether to conceive equal educational
opportunity in terms of equality of inputs or equality of outcomes. We will
consider these and other criteria. While this course is devoted to a sustained,
philosophical investigation of equal educational opportunity, the mystery of
the course is whether or not we will actually be able to delimit, define, and
philosophically defend our own or some version of that principle.
Doing so should be made
somewhat less abstract by considering, in the third half of class, specific
education policies designed to promote equal educational opportunity (e.g.,
K-12 policies such as tracking, schools of choice/vouchers, special education,
gifted education, standards and assessment; higher education policies in
admissions requirements and procedures and affirmative hiring; and broad K-16
issues such as gender equality, sexual orientation, and multiculturalism). The
ability to apply various politico-philosophical lenses to such issues will
enable us to explain away or to justify more fully some political lenses over
others, thus deepening the philosophical roots of our ultimate
conceptualization of equal educational opportunity.
·
Course Requirements:
1. Reading questions are
provided for every class period. You should be prepared to respond to these questions.
This preparation does not require full written, formal responses.
Prepare a 5x7 index card with a micro-essay on one side, with key terms/concepts
underlined. On the other side, provide at least one question to pose to the
class regarding the reading. This should not be a regurgitation-type question
(e.g., How does author X define Y on page 37?). It should be something for
which you truly need clarification and/or something that challenges the class
to think more deeply about the ideas presented. Due: Beginning of each
class period.
2. Participate in class.
Both quantity and quality count. The occasional short writing assignment will
be included in your participation grade.
3. Do a presentation on
EEO as applied to a specific topic. Topics and readings will be assigned (see
May 2). Due: May 2.
4. Write a paper or
develop some other scholarly project. Below are a few options for a final project. You may choose any one as outlined here or
come up with something else (for which you will need to get my approval).
Basically, I want you to have a project that will benefit you the most in your
broader degree studies. (You may, if you choose, develop your final project
with a partner.) Due: May 7, by midnight.
Option A: Write an essay review of a book of your
choosing that discusses EEO explicitly or deals with some aspect of EEO (an
educational policy or practice designed to promote EEO, e.g.). I can help you
determine a book to review. The optional text listed below (Brighouse,
Howe, and Tooley) would be a good choice. Some
guiding questions to approach a review of that book would be: What are the overlapping agreements among the three
arguments? What are the major disagreements? Where do the philosophical roots
of these disagreements lie?
Generally, an
essay-review should develop a thesis that links the book under consideration to
the field and examines its strengths and weaknesses to support that thesis. For
the purposes of this course, your thesis will come out of the conceptual
framework you develop from the course readings, which will allow you to not
only “examine” but to critique. The Harvard Education Review, lists some other
things to consider in developing a good review including
-Does the review convey the content
of the book, the author's approach to the subject, and the author's
conclusions? The best reviews avoid a chapter-by-chapter listing of themes in
favor of a more integrated approach:
-Does the review place the work in
the context of its field and give a sense of the work's significance?
-Does the review present a balanced
analysis of the book's strengths and weaknesses and illustrate those points
with examples?
-Is the review written in a clear
and lively style? The question of style is hard to define, but the best reviews
illustrate that elusive quality which makes a piece both interesting and
engaging.
Option B: Write a research paper on an educational policy
or practice ostensibly designed to promote fair equality of (educational) opportunity.
This will require a minimum of three outside resources (articles) on the topic.
These can be philosophical/theoretical or empirical pieces. You should explain
the practice or policy and its purpose, reveal its political grounding (what
political theory gives this practice authority?), and defend or critique the
practice by drawing further on political theory. This would be a good project
if you wanted to build on and use the work you did for your presentation topic
from May 2.
Option C: Design a school based on the political theory
and definition of EEO of your choosing. You might take a local school with
which you are familiar and use it as your foil. In this project you might
include the development of a conceptual framework for your school (based on
your political position), writing a mission statement, and describing what
policies and practices would or would not be in place (e.g., gifted education,
retention, etc.) and why. You need to have a minimum of three outside resources
(articles) that research, analyze, and discuss “model” schools from which you
can analyze the strengths and weaknesses of other schools in the development of
your ideal school.
Option D: Time simply does not permit our consideration
of all perspectives. However, those of you who are somewhat read in the area of
post-structural/post-modern theory, may want to critique liberalism – and its
resultant notions of equal opportunity – from this perspective. This will
require a minimum of three outside resources (articles) on the topic. You might
use Howe’s rather abrupt dismissal of post-structuralism as a point of
departure. So, what is the post-structural critique of liberalism? How
does/should this inform our notions of equal (educational) opportunity? Are the
positions irreconcilable?
Presentation =
10 points
Participation
=
20 points
Micro-essays = 30 points
Final
Paper = 40 points
FINAL
GRADING: 100-90, A; 89-80, B; 79-70, C…and so on.
Absences - High and chronic absenteeism also
affects the dynamics of the class. Your attendance is required and absences
will negatively affect your participation grade since you cannot participate if
you do not attend. One absence will not affect your grade. Barring some sort of
emergency or illness, all others will.
Statement of Equal
Treatment and Disabilities –
The instructors and students in this course will act with integrity and strive
to engage in equitable verbal and non-verbal behavior with respect to differences
arising from age, gender, race, nationality, language, physical ability,
religious preferences, and sexual orientation. If you are registered with the
Office of Disability Services, please make an appointment with the instructor
as soon as possible to discuss any course accommodations that may be necessary.
If you have a disability but have not contacted the Office of Disability
Services, please call 354-5175 or visit Osband Hall
to register for services.
Academic Misconduct – All acts of dishonesty in any work
constitute academic misconduct. The Academic Misconduct Policy will be followed
in the event of academic misconduct. Please see the University statement and
policy regarding plagiarism.
· Required
Texts:
Howe,
K. R. (1997). Understanding equal
educational opportunity: Social justice,
democracy and schooling. New York: Teachers College Columbia University.
080773599X
Jacobs,
L. A. (2004). Pursuing
equal opportunities: The theory and practice of egalitarian justice.
New York: Cambridge University Press. 0521530210
Arthur, J. and Shaw, W. H. (1991). Justice and Economic Distribution (2nd
Ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 0135142415
Optional Text
Brighouse,
H., Howe, K. R., and Tooley, J. (2010). Educational Equality (2nd
Ed.). New York: Continuum. 9781441184832
· Additional
Readings and Resources
Bell, D. (1993). Communitarianism and its critics. NY: Oxford
University Press, Inc.
Benhabib, S. (1989). Liberal dialogue versus a
critical theory of discursive legitimation. In Nancy L. Rosenblum (Ed.), Liberalism
and the moral life, pp. 143-156. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Benhabib, S. (1999). The liberal imagination and
the four dogmas of multiculturalism. The Yale Journal of Criticism,
12(2), 401-413.
Boaz, S. (1997). Libertarianism:
A primer. NY: The Free Press.
Bowles,
S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Broken promises: School reform in
Retrospect. In Bowles, S. & Gintis, H., Schooling
in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of
economic life (pp. 18-49). New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Bowles,
S. & Gintis, H. (1989). Can there be a liberal philosophy of education
in a democratic society? In Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. L., Critical
pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle (pp. 24-31, p. 255). Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Bredo, E. (2002). How can
philosophy of education be both viable and good? Educational Theory, 52(3),
pp. 263-271.
Burbules, N. C., & Sherman, A. L. (1979). Equal educational opportunity: Ideal or
ideology. In Philosophy of Education 1979, (pp.
105-114).
Burbules,
N. C. (1990). Equal opportunity or equal education? Educational
Theory, 40(2), pp. 221-226.
Cavanagh, M. (2002). Against equality of
opportunity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Coleman, J. (1968). The concept of equality of educational opportunity. Harvard
Educational Review, 38, 7-22.
Eisenberg, A. (2006).
Education and the politics of difference: Iris Young and the politics of
education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1(38), 7-23.
Ennis, R. H. (1976). Equality of educational opportunity. Educational Theory,
26(1), pp. 3-18.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (2002). Should philosophers and educators be speaking to
each other? Educational Theory, 52(3), pp. 339-348.
Frazer, E. (1999). The
problems of communitarian politics: Unity and conflict. NY:
Oxford University Press.
Guinier,
L. (2004). From racial liberalism to racial literacy: Brown v. Board of
Education and the interest-divergence dilemma. The Journal of American
History, pp. 92-118.
Gupta, N. (2001). Addressing persistent forms of oppression in a liberal democracy: A
cultural approach to multiculturalism. Philosophy of Education,
300-307.
Gutmann,
A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gutmann,
A. (Ed.) (1994). Multiculturalism. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Howe, K. (1989). In defense of outcomes-based conceptions of equal educational
opportunity. Educational Theory, 39(4), pp. 317-336.
Howe, K. (1990). Equal
opportunity is equal education (within limits). Educational Theory,
40(2), pp. 227-230.
James, A. (1998).
Communitarianism: What are implications for education? Educational Studies,
3(24), 353-368.
Kymlicka, W. (1990). Contemporary political philosophy: An
introduction. NY: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (1991). Liberalism, community, and
culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship.
NY: Oxford University Press.
Maiese, M. “Distributive Justice.” Beyond Intractability.
Ed. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Posted June 2003. Conflict Research Consortium,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/distributive_justice/
McQuillan,
P. J. (1998). Educational opportunity in an urban American high
school: A cultural analysis. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Mill, J. S.
(1979). Utilitarianism (G. Sher,
Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Co.
Newall,
P. (2005). Introducing Philosophy 9: Political Philosophy.
Retrieved from
http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43787
Nielsen, K. (1985). Equality
and liberty: A defense of radical egalitarianism. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
Phillips, D. C. (June,
2008). "Philosophy of Education,” The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta
(ed.), Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/
Noddings,
N. (1984). Caring, a feminine approach to ethics and moral
education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Noddings,
N. (1992). Excellence as a guide to educational conversation.
Philosophy of Education, 5-21.
O’Neill, O. (1976). Opportunities, equalities and education. Theory and
Decision, 7, 275-295.
Rosenblum,
N. L. (Ed.). (1989). Liberalism and
the moral life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice
as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments
political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher,
21, 22-27.
Smart, J. J. C., &
Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism for and against.
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, S. (2002). A
lower wall between church and state: Vouchers or charter schools? Philosophy
of Education, 212-220.
Young,
I. M. (1989). Polity and group
difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. Ethics, 99(2),
pp. 250-274.
Young,
I. M. (1994). Comments
on Seyla Benhabib,
situating the self. New German Critique, 62, 165-172.
· Course Schedule
|
Date |
Topic |
Reading (Online, in J&ED, other
class text) |
Reading Questions |
|
Unit 1: Philosophy,
Distributive Justice, and Equal Opportunity |
|||
|
Introductory Reading |
Brief introductions to
the philosophical method, political philosophy, and philosophy of education |
Syllabus Newall (There is no need to read the “dialogue”
at the end of this essay.) |
Should everyone have
equal opportunity? What is the philosophical method? What is political philosophy?
What is philosophy of education? What is justice? What does the political
philosophy of distributive justice have to do with? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfYw9OqD8YA (Note: A micro-essay is not
required for these readings.) |
|
Feb. 8 (Micro-essay due. At a minimum address the prompts in
green in your micro-essay) |
Utilitarianism and the
Liberal Egalitarian Response |
Bentham,
chs. 1-5 Mill, chs. 2 & 5 |
What is
utilitarianism? What are the
strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism as a political philosophy? Can
utilitarianism be seen as a philosophy of justice and/or, more specifically,
as a theory of distributive justice? Probably one of the most powerful types of utilitarianism is
“meritocratic utilitarianism.” Building on Mills, what do you think that is
and what might it have to do with equal (educational) opportunity? |
|
Hobbes, Intro,
chs. 13 & 14 Rawls |
What is social
contract theory? In what ways is
Rawls’ project a response to utilitarians? Is it an improvement as a theory of
distributive justice or not? How so or why not? How might you begin to apply
Rawls to a conceptualization of equal educational opportunity? |
||
|
Feb. 22 (Micro-essay due.) |
Libertarianism and
Utilitarianism (revisited) |
Nozick Smart
|
What are the
libertarian and utilitarian critiques of liberal egalitarianism? What would
equal (educational) opportunity consist of for a libertarian? Why would a
liberal egalitarian (Rawls) have a problem with that? |
|
March 7 (Micro-essay due.) |
Radical Egalitarianism and Equal
Opportunity |
Nielsen (pp. 45-99) Jacobs (chs.
1-2) |
How
does Nielsen’s egalitarianism differ from Rawls’? In other words, what makes
the former “radical” and the latter “liberal?” How does Jacobs begin to
bridge this gap? |
|
March 21 (Micro-essay due.) |
Meritocracy and natural inequalities |
Nielsen (pp. 148-87) Cohen Jacobs (ch.
3) (In class exercise
…case studies to be read in class.) |
How does libertarianism fail according
to Cohen? How does Rawls engage in utilitarian thinking according to Nielsen
and how does he object to equal opportunity according to Jacobs? Who’s winning so far? What
concerns do you have about the “radical” critiques? |
|
Unit 2: Defining Equal
Educational Opportunity |
|||
|
April 4 (Short paper due.) |
Defining EEO |
ASSIGNMENT: WRITE A
2-3 PAGE RESPONSE AS HOWE TO BURBULES*. (You may skip the micro-essay this
week.) |
|
|
April 18 (Micro-essay due.) |
Defining EEO as “opportunities
worth wanting” (within communities?) |
Sandel Howe (Chs.
1-2, and Conclusion) In class reading: Mozert Case |
What is the communitarian critique
of liberalism? What must liberals do to withstand this critique? What does
this mean to education generally and to a conception of EEO specifically? How does Howe “solve” the debate
on whether EEO should be based on equality of inputs or equality of outcomes? How does Howe employ an
egalitarian framework to build his argument toward his specific
conceptualization of EEO? Is he more like Rawls or Nielsen? Why? |
|
Unit 3:
Pursuing Equal Educational Opportunity |
|||
|
May 2 (Presentations. No micro-essays due.) |
Issues of EEO |
||
|
Gender, Feminism, and EEO |
Friedman Howe (Ch. 3) Jacobs (Ch. 8) |
Review Nozick and Smart from 9/27 and recall their critiques of
liberal egalitarianism. How does Howe explain the libertarian and utilitarian
approaches away? Do you agree with his assessment of them? What is the basic
argument (not position) provided by Howe and Jacobs regarding equal
opportunity for women? What are the linkages between EEO (Howe) and EO
(Jacobs)? How might Friedman’s feminist critique of communitarianism
also apply to contractarianism? |
|
|
The demands of multiculturalism on
justice and EEO |
Howe (Chs.
4-5) Jacobs (Ch. 5) (You might also be interested in Diller’s
response to Gupta.) |
Reviewing chs. 2-4 in Howe, what are the primary components and
processes of the participatory ideal? Is Howe susceptible to Gupta’s critique
of providing a limited “political account” of equality? Why not or how so? In
what ways and instances might “participation” differ for Howe and Gupta? If “recognition” and
identity maintenance are key to equal opportunity generally (e.g., Jacobs)
and the participatory ideal specifically, isn’t integration
counter-productive? |
|
|
The politics of difference vs. the
meritocratic order |
Howe (Chs.
6-7) Jacobs (Ch. 4) (You might also be interested in Howe’s
response to Smith.) |
All: What are the key
contributions made by Iris Young (according to Howe and Eisenberg) and how do
(should) they affect educational policy and conceptualizations of EEO?
Why/how does Eisenberg distinguish between a politics of redistribution and a
politics of difference? How would you solve this philosophically? Group 1: How does
standardized testing affect equal opportunity and equal educational
opportunity? Group 2: How does school
choice promote/detract from EEO? |
|